Why is neoliberalism so durable?

Stagnating wages, declining public services, austerity, mass unemployment, privatization, economic crisis, I could go on but all of these problems are now affecting capitalism, at least in the First World. Things are not that much better elsewhere either. Liberal democracy is now being questioned as mainstream political parties in Europe see their popularity slip as more people lose faith in the ability of politics to bring about change.

So why is neoliberalism still so dominant across the globe? Why has there been no major anti-capitalist movement arising in response to the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great Depression? Was Margaret Thatcher correct that "there is no alternative" to this system? I find it puzzling that there has not been more conflict since the financial crisis hit in 2008. The only major changes have occurred in the Arab countries and those revolutions seem to be reactionary in nature.

The reason is because people are too afraid to try alternatives. They have experience of living under a liberal economic system and have heard terrible things about others. For all its problems and faults they are made to believe liberalism is the only system suitable for them. Furthermore they also believe that they live in the first world, despite the fact that there exists tremendous poverty in developed countries as well. Because they live in the first world they think that the reason their societies have reached such levels of economic strength is only due to economic liberalism.

In general though the average person does not think so much about politics or economics enough to really think about these things. This is why they do not really consider alternatives.

Political Interest wrote:

The reason is because people are too afraid to try alternatives. They have experience of living under a liberal economic system and have heard terrible things about others. For all its problems and faults they are made to believe liberalism is the only system suitable for them. Furthermore they also believe that they live in the first world, despite the fact that there exists tremendous poverty in developed countries as well. Because they live in the first world they think that the reason their societies have reached such levels of economic strength is only due to economic liberalism.

In general though the average person does not think so much about politics or economics enough to really think about these things. This is why they do not really consider alternatives.

I think you are right. This is probably why the end of the Soviet Union was such a disaster. For all of its faults, it was a pretty successful example of an alternative modern civilization.

Because neoliberalism has historically created periods of national prosperity. Also, it (and capitalism in general) is seen as the only possible way of running a society. It has its enduring track record to prove it whilst communism collapsed after 70 years.

In the developing world capitalism is still playing out its historical role. It is responsible for some of the great modernisation stories we see today in China, India, and other parts of Asia and Latin America. Here wages aren't necessarily stagnating.


I think what will need to happen in the west is for the generations who grew up while the USSR et al still existed to die off. Eventually a new generation will come along which has no memory of the propaganda and will be much more open to communism as an alternative system (provided it is done correctly this time).

Political Interest wrote:

In general though the average person does not think so much about politics or economics enough to really think about these things. This is why they do not really consider alternatives.

Expanding on this, the average person's mind is kept away from political and economic affairs. Materialism and the media is to blame. The newest Ipad or Iphone is broadcast on the evening news right along with whatever celebrity did what. If you took away their basis to afford these luxuries, as well as their ability to afford everyday necessities such as food, petrol, etc., then more people will be unsatisfied with capitalism.

I think, generally, the working masses have little class consciousness, or even false consciousness. They have been reared in the capitalist system, and that is the system that has survived for the longest. As previously mentioned, they are also afraid to try other things. Anti-communist propaganda is so virulent that many people believe it to be worse than Nazism. It should also be noted that many people try to reform the system and change things from within, rather than committing to revolution to bring the working masses to socialism. The only thing that will cause the proletariat to achieve their historical duty is by class consciousness, which will only arise when they become so exploited and so alienated from the bourgeoisie. But the revolution will come, it is certain, neoliberalism is surely on its way out. In the impoverished sections of the world there have already been revolts against the current system to bring about a system run by the people; and there have been many protests in the First World against economic inequality.

Quote:

So why is neoliberalism still so dominant across the globe?

It's dominant among the ruling class because it serves them. They enact neoliberal policies because they have the power to do so. It's not like working people all over the world believe in neoliberalism. Every halfway educated proletarian uses neoliberal as a slur.

Quote:

Why has there been no major anti-capitalist movement arising in response to the biggest capitalist crisis since the Great Depression?

I don't think you understand what has been going on in southern Europe for the last two years. Also even Occupy could be called a "major anti-capitalist movement".

Quote:

Was Margaret Thatcher correct that "there is no alternative" to this system?

For the bourgeoisie, there is no alternative. She spoke for them.

Also the immiseration thesis is dangerous and wrong.

Philippines

Let the fire of nationalism burn

Quote:

The prolonged economic depression of the US compels it to more vigorously assert its own interests and expand its markets. US efforts to intensify the exploitation of labor and tighten control of trade routes in order to ride over its economic depression are resulting in worsening socio-economic conditions in semicolonial and semifeudal countries such as the Philippines.

http://www.philippinerevolution.net/sta ... alism-burn

The above quote is linked to an article setting out a call to action by the Communist Party here. Hope it is of interest

Piccolo wrote:

This is probably why the end of the Soviet Union was such a disaster. For all of its faults, it was a pretty successful example of an alternative modern civilization.

This. The left is still relatively weak since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Neoliberalism seems durable because the left isn't as strong as it was to challenge the system.

We still have class antagonisms in neoliberalism (major struggles I'm thinking of are the anti globalization protests and OWS) but with the left in a weakened state, we are unable to successfully/seriously challenge the system.

Neoliberalism is so powerful because of its power as an ideology to grease the wheels of profit and imperialism. The bourgeoisie aren't really conscious enough to be malevolent. Hence the need for an ideology that makes them monsters by rote.